tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post8371523389844767437..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Zombies are realRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-12645726936682328892010-11-10T10:12:09.354-08:002010-11-10T10:12:09.354-08:00The relevance of the example is that we already kn...The relevance of the example is that we already know that multiple conscious minds can coexist inside a single human brain. So interpreting Lubbock's report of his experience is challenging.<br /><br />In any case, I read the original article after my previous comment. I've got a new interpretation. Lubbock talked about, not being able to have extended conversations in depth (without Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-3489373539811652922010-11-10T09:43:11.479-08:002010-11-10T09:43:11.479-08:00BTW, you don't need to do split-brain experime...BTW, you don't need to do split-brain experiments to get interesting rationalizations out of people:<br /><br />http://www.feelguide.com/2010/10/14/daniel-simons-ted-talk/Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24884922298391847692010-11-10T09:42:20.039-08:002010-11-10T09:42:20.039-08:00This seems different to me. Lubbock isn't rat...This seems different to me. Lubbock isn't rationalizing. Quite the opposite: he is explicitly reporting being unable to account for the actions being performed by part of his mind that he no longer has conscious access to.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-31389778664459278622010-11-09T16:43:48.156-08:002010-11-09T16:43:48.156-08:00Another possible interpretation is that the tumor ...Another possible interpretation is that the tumor is splitting his brain into more than one mind, and part of him happens to have no introspective access to what the other part is doing. Just because "he" doesn't have conscious access to the conversation, doesn't mean that the speaker of conversation necessarily lacks that access (or the associated qualia).<br /><br />We'veDon Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.com